Actually, quite the opposite. It's like anti-terrorists complaining that they can do nothing against few terrorists who dig a bunker right next to airport, and are shooting at planes from there.
If there is no drawbacks to hiding underground, then all the advantages of doing so will make surface bases obsolete in combat.
Would be boring.
There are better ways of promoting defense, without forcing people into holes. I.e. cost-effectiveness of guns vs their weight-effectiveness.

I think you misunderstood my post. You still have access to your character - the only thing suspended is % of character skill level.
Example: when you die you get -50% levels. Every 1 hour that penalty is reduced by 1%. After 50h (2d2h) you're back at 100%.
Now if you still think that would lead to any support calls, please explain why.
Pissed off players? Any more than after loosing expensive ship, equipment and resources that they need to work to regain (rather than just waiting)? Doubt it.

According to my knowledge:
1. You "just" need resources/quanta(in-game currency) to create/buy it and fuel/energy to operate.
But you also can buy in-game currency from other players for DAC (in-game item that can be bough for real money, and can be used as monthly subscription)
2. We don't know much about FFU. It may be physical shield that prevent entrance unless you have permission, but it may also simple prevent damage from weapons. I hope the later - physical shield feels fake af.

AFAIK there will be some kind of artificial "drag" in space, so you'll probably run out of fuel, rather tan going infinitely.
How far will that be? Probably far enough that you'll be alone for a long long time.

I've read only half of your wonderful argue, but both of you seem to start repeating too much.
So I'll address OP directly: Killing doesn't mean aggression. Someone can be the bad guy without killing, and only tool against it may be attacking him. Thus nobody should be penalised for self-defence by dumb automatic system.
However, I'm for death that has proportional consequences to all the tools you brought into combat. Including character skill levels. Following the rule "you shouldn't use what you're not ready to loose".
Although IMO such loss should be temporary, so no subscription time is ever lost. Just suspended for few days.

From my observation most players (and people in general) are fine with the fact that someone makes decisions for them. Thus authoritarian or oligarchy works pretty well.
Not dictatorship, because as you said nobody can force us to play. But not truly democratic either.

@Hughesy Good point. For that we'd need access via Lua to center of mass position and all engines thrust vectors.
But NQ do provide some built in AI - they added automatic emergency stabilisation already, as well as automatic control mapping for all propulsion. So I wouldn't be surprised if we get thrust stabilisation too.

That's assuming you can do all the operations remotely (within limited range). If you need to physically access trading unit to buy/sell, then afk bot won't work (unless you manage to program path-finding too).

Possible reason could be huge advance in defence technology (super-armour), with only offensive option that is powerful enough to do anything being huge (spinal mounting) and incompatible with active guidance (i.e. plasma).
Finding lore explanation for gameplay mechanics is never a problem

Tripwires, pressure plates, proximity detectors, ect - those are all confirmed.
But I'm also wondering about any damage-dealing automatic objects that could be triggered. We can always box poor maze explorer in super deep well, killing by fall damage or forcing him to suicide due to no exit. But it's hardly time or space efficient way.
Short range plasma cutting blade would work, without being any threat to "combat should be manual, not automatic" rule.

Because unlike manual turrets, those are not hard limited by the amount of players. And that's huge advantage when your firepower can grow linearly over time, theoretically infinitely.
If we're able to control more than single weapon, then the same problem would apply to manual weapons as well. But fighting against real players is fun at least.
Limiting range would be some way to balance that, but that would just force all the attacking forces to always use only long range weapons. Quite boring and freedom-limiting IMO. Same apply for limiting penetration to make them effective only against light crafts and infantry.
Using upkeep system won't help either, as you can just design the base with designated spots for them, and place them in matter of minutes after spotting enemies/waiting for shields to go down.

So I find a core, blow it up, then whole death-star/space station/city/star gate/battleship/ect. suddenly disappears leaving loot-sacks behind?
No, thanks. I'd rather have indestructible core (unless you're the owner and remove all the blocks first), that loose ownership after after loosing all HP - transferring it to whoever repairs it.
If you allow hacking Lua, no matter what level it requires, you can make it available to owner by default just as well. Which removes possibility of earning quanta by being in-game programmer. I'm all for volunteer open source, but not forced one.
Character levels are never a good way to balance such aspects of the game - sooner or later those high level hackers will be commonly available.

I hope scouting will be more about actively moving around due to limited range, so afk is not an option. Unless you just want to collect data about who's passing very specific point in space, like who's leaving space station heading towards planet, ect.
And public markets should be displayed through some kind of external app - players will export data anyway, even if not provided by NQ.
That would limit multi-sub to simply more characters and faster leveling.

You mean trench warfare? Not really working that well against space-ships....
In case of dogfighting - if we get spinal mounted weapons (probably lock and fire, just within limited angle), and if they are better enough than turreted ones (twice at least), and if agility is restricted enough to prevent almost instant turning to face your enemy, and if some game mechanics (hit chance?) encourage remaining in constant motion... then we'll have it.
Quite a lot of if.

I hope it's the opposite - It's much more fun and challenge when they do apply torque. Especially when there are even more requirements for engine placement (i.e. clearance behind and in front, minimal distance from specific elements, ect.)
Some system of automatic thrust stabilisation should be there of course. Something that will tone down right side engines when left side ones get damaged (or someone just forgot to put them there). But using it should reduce efficiency - it'd be kind of last resort system, not free easy mode.

@CoreVamore IMO that's too artificial. Salvaging is basically the same as removing parts from your own constructs, and should follow the same rules. What if I attacked a base/ship to take it over and keep it, not just to loot/destroy? Do I have to scrap whole construct and build my own?
Of course you shouldn't be able to make blueprints of captured construct or access Lua code (IP protection). But no other actions with constructs should be limited just because you're not the original owner.
Also IMO encouraging people to salvage by making it faster than mining is a good way to make the space and planets cleaner. If it's too slow to be viable, we'll end up with tons of space garbage flying everywhere. We just need to make sure that there is not much left after battle, but it should be well worth picking up.

That's quite tricky aspect - how to ensure resource sink without using any silly artificial mechanics.
First option is making players unable to fully repair elements. So i.e. a gun that lost 50% durability (thus get disabled in combat) can only get 80% of that damage repaired (so it'll end at 90% - remaining 10% remain as "permanent damage").
Thus it'd create need for new elements for both loosing and wining side, while at the same time filling market with sub-par elements for those not so wealthy.
Another thing is preventing too easy coring of the ship - disabling it without dealing significant damage. So maybe "core shield capacitor" type of element, that need to be destroyed before you can even touch the core (and it can be located on the other side of the ship). It could apply to the near surrounding of the core too, so I.e. main control unit live as long as the core.
In general coring should not be the aim of the combat, but rather something you do after the fight is over.
IMO hiding the core is not the way to go - we're here to fight, not search for artificial "I win" button.
Also the elements that are less likely to be destroyed (internals - storage units, generators, ect) should be in general much less valuable than external ones (weapons, engines).
Thus at least that part of the market will be at constant need of new parts.
Or elements should just go boom when destroyed, wrecking everything around them. It would also ensure that covering whole ship surface with guns not only look terrible, but is also completely impractical due to chain reaction.

@NanoDot combat is just one example of non-menial job. But building, constructing, trading, spying, exploring, ect also fall into that category. So all activities that require players to make meaningful decisions. And I'd totally like to spend most of the time doing those.
Don't take his whole post as simple "hurr durr PvP all the time!". That's putting words into his mouth.
We'll see how interesting mining aspect in DU will be. No game so far made it anything but boring IMO, but who knows....
But yeah, the sowball effect of automation is real concern. It could quickly lead the wining side in a region to monopolie means of productions, making everyone else unable to ever come back into competition.
Unless automation is granted to everyone (basic resource income over time), but it's pretty much removing whole mining aspect from the game. And encourage botting (if require online presence) or multi-account (if not). Not gonna happen.
So our only hope is that NQ really make it nice. Or that population of people who enjoy pure relaxing life of a miner is large, so resources are cheap on the market.

First thing first, IMO balancing anything by hidding it behind waiting is the lazy, and in the long term inefficient way. It also promotes multi-account, which is P2W.
Besides that, I could see this idea working, but on much limited level: you can loot someone's "tag box" which allows you to use elements this person could use (buttons, diors, storage, control units). But no access to things like org management, elements rdms management or modifying constructs. Just physical objects. And just until he reset the tags (either few hours from death, from first use or set number of uses)
You also couldn't see what's inside the box - you can just guess what doors are now open for you.
And in the org logs it should show "hacked access", not tha poor man's name.